[swift-evolution] final + lazy + fileprivate modifiers

[Rien]

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 23:34, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> While we’re bikeshedding, I’m going to add my two cents. Hold on to your hat because this might be controversial here.
> 
> I think both ‘private’ and ‘fileprivate’ are unnecessary complications that only serve to clutter the language.
> 
> It would make a lot more sense to just have internal and public only. No private, no fileprivate, no lineprivate, no protected. It’s all silly.
> 
> Slava

+1

Not because it is silly, and there are uses, but simplification is imo way more powerful than questionable features.

Regards,
Rien

Site: http://balancingrock.nl
Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
Github: http://github.com/Balancingrock
Project: http://swiftfire.nl
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 7:40 AM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> "Either keep it or drop it, but don't keep fiddling with it." sums up my position well.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> > On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Keeping with the spirit of Swift and staying consistent with its design, I see two plausible meanings for private:
>> >
>> > Private could mean either:
>> > 1) private to the file (Swift 2 semantics)
>> > 2) accessible only to the current type/scope and to extensions to that type that are in the current file.
>> >
>> > I don’t think we’ve ever evaluated and debated approach #2 systematically.
>> 
>> For what it's worth:
>> 
>> I was opposed to SE-0025, but since I lost, I have tried to use `private` wherever it made sense, rather than fighting with the language.
>> 
>> Sometimes, the change of keyword makes no difference. Other times, it's a hassle, because I have to switch between `private` and `fileprivate` as I redesign things, with little perceived benefit. I'd say the split between these is about 50/50.
>> 
>> On a few occasions, I *have* genuinely appreciated the SE-0025 version of `private`. These involved cases where I wanted to ensure that instance variables were only manipulated in certain ways, using interfaces I had specifically designed to handle them correctly. For instance, I might have two parallel arrays, and I wanted to make sure that I only added or removed elements from both arrays at once. I could do this with `fileprivate` by splitting the type into two files, but it was more convenient to do it in one.
>> 
>> In these cases, switching to #2 would *completely* defeat the purpose of using `private`, because the extensions would be able to directly manipulate the private instance variables. I would no longer gain any benefit at all from `private`. All of my uses would either fall into "makes no difference" or "it's a hassle".
>> 
>> I do not support the idea of changing `private` to mean #2. Doing so would eliminate the few decent use cases I've found for `private`. Either keep it or drop it, but don't keep fiddling with it.
>> 
>> --
>> Brent Royal-Gordon
>> Architechies
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution